That's where economics sheds light on the problem. It is absolutely, completely impossible for there to be a permanent "loss of jobs." The loss of jobs in buggy whip factories is probably permanent, but because human want is infinite, there is always something else to be done.
You're putting words in my mouth. I didn't say permanent loss of jobs, I stated: "There is a loss of a jobs and the statistics prove it.
We're not just talking temporary dislocations anymore, because outsourcing is getting to the point where there are losses everywhere or will be."
"Not temporary" is "permanent." Your own quote illustrates that I wasn't putting any words in your mouth.
Human want may be infinite, but the means of fulfilling those wants isn't necessarily so at any given time period.
Doesn't matter: the point is that there's always something else to be done. That's
always true in
every given time period. The dislocation is always due to one (or more) of three reasons: the worker doesn't know yet what there is to do; or he doesn't know how to do it; or he refuses to do it. The first thing a laid-off steel worker says is, "What else can I do? I've worked in a mill all my life! There aren't any other jobs..." eventually, he learns about other jobs. Some he isn't qualified for. Some he refuses to do. Some pay less than he used to make.
But what is
always true, at
every point in history, is that there's something else out there for him to do.
Even those with plenty of education are not getting jobs. Outsourcing isn't just a problem with unskilled workers.
Proof? And how about more specificity? When I was in grad school, one of the morning bus drivers had a PhD in English--but so what? He picked a (practically) useless major, and found that the market didn't want him... but that isn't proof of any systemic problem.
Burden of proof. It's on you. Post the evidence. (As Rabbi has pointed out, your claim is not true anway.)
Enough has already been posted. There is a net loss of jobs...
You've posted the claim, repeatedly, but never posted the proof. Repeated assertions don't prove anything.
Regulations limiting outsourcing, or quotas limiting imported goods, or other such measures, are exactly like tariffs in every way.
How so? If consumers aren't led to believe artificially low prices are correct there wouldn't be a problem.
You keep opening economic cans of worms. If you try to define "artificially low prices," you'll discover that you can't define it. Worse, you'll discover that there is, in general, no such thing: you're trying to accuse China of "predatory pricing," in the same way that folks like to accuse Walmart, but you don't realize that this subject is well-researched. On one hand, claimed examples of "predatory pricing" have all evaporated under scrutiny; on the other hand, solid economic proof is already out there that "predatory pricing" is always a losing game. Anyone foolish enough to try it will lose his shirt. In particular, if China really were selling us goods below cost, in the belief that it gave them some sort of advantage, then (1) they're wrong, and (2) they're
benefiting us at their own expense. It would mean they were giving us cheap steel (or whatever)
but absorbing the cost themselves. They would be starving their own people to give us steel.
Consider the limiting case in which I decide I hate the local pizza man, and decide to drive him out of business by giving away free pizza. For starters, he can generally bankrupt
me simply by going on vacation until I've gone broke giving out free pizza. He can also collect my free pizzas, through straw buyers perhaps, and then sell them for money in another town or freeze them for later use. He can compete on quality, by making pizza twice as good as mine, or by selling only gourmet pizza. He can hire dancing girls as waitresses. He can get a liquor license. He can even switch to the wholesale market and sell pizza shells to restaurants (as a local pizza place actually did). If all else fails, and he goes out of business, I still lose: if I crank up the price of my pizza to recover the millions I spent, nothing stops the same or another pizza man from immediately opening a store and competing on price. "Predatory pricing" is a losing game, and any businessman with an ounce of sense knows it.
But the other thing I want you to note is that, while my "predatory pricing" was underway, I was giving the people pizza at my own expense. I was draining my bank account so others could eat pizza. I was benefiting others and hurting myself--and in the long run, I failed to achieve my objective anyway.
This outsourcing amounts to welfare...
No, I'm not going to let you get away with that. "Welfare" is money taken from Peter by force and handed over to Paul, with the excuse that "Paul really needs it." "Outsourcing" is when Peter decides to hire Paul, of his own free will, and Paul accepts the job, of his own free will, but Mary is enraged because, if only Paul were dead, Mary might get the job at a higher wage. That sort of thing happens all the time in the market, because employers (like everyone else) shop around for the best deal. You're proposing that the government threaten to arrest Peter unless he fires Paul and hires Mary at the higher salary.
THAT, my friend, is welfare.
--Len.
